At 07:25 PM 1/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
>"Not that I disagree in principle, but surely this only applies to the
>U.S.A., not an international forum such as we have here. I must check
>the Australian constitution to see if Frank really was entitled to make
>those statements while on Australian soil!"
>
>I didn't want to have to post something, but I must.
>
>You're confusing legal rights with intellectual honesty. Simply because
>we have a protected right to free speech does not mean that anything and
>everything someone says is worth hearing.
>
>We all have the right to speak freely, but we are not "entitled" to
>foolish, shallow, poorly thought-out, or self-serving opinions. If
>people carefully thought through their opinions before expressing them,
>public discourse would be much more agreeable and productive.
>
But therein lies the rub. Who's to quantify what's foolish, etc? Once you
establish a committee to decide, well, no more free speech, right?
Therefore everyone _is_ entitled to make exactly the kind of speech you
deplore. The marketplace of people and ideas will decide the relative
worth. If you the works of Karl Marx, for example, fit that category, you
don't buy the book. If here, you hit the delete key, or reply in kind!
What strikes people here as shallow etc., might meet with total agreement
on the Nikon list.
That is why free speech is a protected right; It protects the unpopular
minority (Frank) against the tyranny of the majority!
Regards,
Denton Taylor
_______________________________
Photogallery at www.dentontaylor.com
Panoramic and 360deg Immersive Images at
www.threehundredsixty.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|